tv [untitled] December 3, 2013 8:00am-8:31am PST
i lost my apartment and to my knowledge there are no services for traumatic brain injury in the city and county of san francisco. the city and county of san francisco continues to assess me for what i qualify for. and i have never been assessed for what i need. i have been a human ping-pong ball going between the myriad of sf agencies for what i need. i have the managers tell me my needs do not fall in the scope of practice. it means the city of san francisco finally narrows what they can do that their hands are tied. skipping over most of this to the end,
these no parking signs are permission for the sf p.d. and sf mta to bully us and they deprive the people of the right to sleep. did you know that depriving human beings of the right to sleep is a common tactic used for terrorism. i think this is immoral for people who are law abiding citizens. please discontinue the no parking signs. >> ted, take it. my apologies. >> i support to increase the
areas for restricting parking to these large vehicles. there is nothing in the law passed when homelessness was not the issue that gives dispensation to people just because of their so-called housing status. so, when you live outside the law, you must be honest. i would further urge as you look at the expansion of this, that one of the areas that has in fact been affected by moving, pushing the ball around is that these golden gate park panhandle, either side north or south of it. this is areas where i have seen crazy things going on. in addition, when you drive on
fell street towards masonic there are large advance parked there. they stick out from the parked row of cars causing drivers to have to negotiate into the adjoining lane to get around them. it's simply dangerous. some of the crazy things i have seen on more than two occasions where people are stringing extension cords from a house to power these rv housing people. if that is notten sane, i don't know what is. i urge you to look at expanding this and continue to offer these services and people who testified, should be talking to him. that's what he's here for. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. so there is no jamie young? what about david? are you here?
barbara? are you here? then we'll have christian walter and lisa marie. >> good afternoon, my name is barbara, the president of the improvement association. i had a flyer with some information that i have passed out to you. basically showing the numbers of the incidents and problems we are having on the block of 27th. there are people who have lived here and moving into this area and do not want to see the kind of problems that are created by these walls of vehicles. you name it, we've had it. you can add district 11 to your list of problem areas. we have had people who are cooking their drugs on the street and daniel the sidewalks to the point where the rebars are popping out. we basically
meet your criteria for places that should be added to the list. with the edge of the park. we have a tiny tots program. and we have limited on street parking which means people coming home late at night don't have access to this area. we have moving vehicles and trucks. they don't move sometimes for 2 weeks. i heard some talk about the 72-hour rule. it's 144-hour rule. because it has to be 72 hours before it's marked and you have to wait another 72 hours before it's moved. it's not really us solving our problems. it needs to be a place where people at least have a chance to share. thank you. >> thank you very much. christian walter?
>> i'm not either of those people. i just want to speak about this. >> okay. get in line behind the two people. christian, are you here? come to the podium. christian you are next. >> i'm hearing a lot of things about a lot of things that seem very selfish in many ways. it seems like you have bordered off this place that is the west coast of the united states of america. not just from people of san francisco, but from people from everywhere who decide that their dream is to come in a mobile home and visit a nice city. i'm pretty good at math. but you've managed to take off 16 vehicles
at full ton street that equals 500 feet. full ton street 15,000 feet long. that makes 1 block and a third of these walls of these vehicles that nobody can stand to see go away. this is where i would this i that all people from everywhere coming to the west coast would want to deliver their own service -- self in a kind of space. it's a bunch of little mad people. maybe we should have a place for these people to batchich and complain. i'm upset now because when i was coming home across from the panhandle. my
little dog was run away. my done should have been home safe. it's not bad. it's not sad. it's just tragic. people should have a safe place to be. earth person on this planet deserves a home. having anything otherwise. >> thank you. we'll have lisa marie and you speak after lisa marie. good afternoon, supervisors, lisa marie on homelessness. we have been following this issue for at least over a year now since this issue has risen to the top. a couple of things i wanted to respond to from the report that i felt were misleading was around the outreach and specifically to respond to your comments supervisor tang about the opportunities that this offered
to do some concerted outreach. that outreach never happened. the outreach was mostly done by uniformed officers where there is already so much tension between the community and officers. that's not outreach, that's not authentic outreach. they posted paper on people's door. there was no contact. that is misleading. because it's not what's happening and there is nothing that indicates that we can expect anything different. that's really frustrating. the other thing that there has been tows where this is happening. there is people calling us about freaking out where they can get their last asset, their home back. that's problematic to me. the other thing i want to say
is about poverty. this is a real issue in our city. it's not just the coalition's responsibility, not just the boards responsibility. it's all of our responsibility. if we say this is all we can do to restrict park. i don't buy that and i hope the rest of the city doesn't by that. i think we can work together and acknowledge that poverty and homelessness is intersecting every department of our city and every home and every community and we have to respond together to deal with this crisis. >> my name is eileen mon cue. we don't have a problem with the homelessness. we have people we know are staying in their van. they are clean. they mind their own business and not
bothering anybody. it's the over sized trucks and people running their business. we pay taxes for our services. they come and park their fancy cars and get into their dumpee graffiti trucks and move furniture. we have these guys that are loading and unloading appliances from one truck to the other back-to-back. we did have a homeless, i guess a homeless person living in a dumpee rv. he was a drug addict. the people that live in the rv's are complaining to us about picking up their, this 1 person's hypodermic needle so kids wouldn't pick them up. we have an area for children to
play at the park, they have found hypodermic needles in the park. in one side of the street, you will find 1 person defecated. one other side of the street smells like urine. we live in a nice neighborhood. we don't need these people coming over and taking over. they are victimizing us. we ask that you extend the restricted parking on alameda blvd. we are not here to oust the homeless. we pay for the services. >> thank you, any other members that wish to speak on item no. 2?
>> thank you. i want to quickly offer her support for extending the restriction to oak and fell. this is directly across from golden gate park and supervisor breed considers this area effects of public safety because they reduce the areas for the kids and bicycle pedestrians and the park as they are coming near or attempting to cross. she strongly supports those areas. thank you for hearing ussous. >> thank you very much, seeing no other public comment, public comment is closed. supervisor tang, what would you like to do with this item? >> thank you for all the speakers. there is so many issues to deal with. i know we
he said he's very willing to work wnd looking for ways to provide services to people who need them. i would like to thank mta and thank you to captain who sat their through this hearing. i don't know if colleagues have anything. captain long we would like to offer you time if you have any comments. with that, i would like to make a motion to file this hearing. >> okay, before we entertain that motion i would like to hear from supervisor campos and supervisor mar. >> thank you for your comments, i appreciate the fanth that i know you are committed to providing services to these folks and i think we have an at some point to find some common
ground. the concerns around safety that were raised are legitimate concerns and ways to address these concerns and still provide a place for folks to park these vehicles whether it's through inter faith council or whether it's through private parties lending a hand. i think we should be able to figure it out. i do appreciate mr. thorny's honest opinion in terms of the end gain here and i think we need to address the concerns and needs of this population. it's an issue of priorities and i would really urge the mta to move expeditiously in finding a solution to this issue and really following through on what the coalition has been
proposing. i think we have to be consistent and we have to address this issue and another issue where we haven't moved as quickly which is also impacting neighborhoods is what's happening with these shuttles that are all over the city. i like the idea of having the shuttles and like the idea of taking shuttles and not driving. if we are going to regulate one segment of the population that we rel -- regulate other areas of the population that we are impacting. the pedestrian safety issues that been raised. the traffic issues that have been raised, those are all issues that merit equal
attention irrespective of how wealthy or not so wealthy the person that maybe involved is. i think we have to be consistent. i do think there is room for common ground and certainly would be open to working with supervisor tang and working with supervisor duffy and anyone else to figure out ways to find that common ground. the sooner we find alternatives, the better. thank you. >> thank you very much. supervisor mar? >> i want so share about the data we found on the human development from the peement that -- people that have no choice but to live in their vehicles. from the mta report the numbers have quadrupled. it's significantly more than the 200 folks that i have
identified and potentially quadrupled that. i like how seattle's efforts with their homeless coalition and city agencies did a research project called seattle vehicular residency research project with seattle university and i would like us to also have a strong look with the coalition on homelessness and some of the research institutions to look at the impact and as jamie mention the coalition on the huge displacement on the city and many of the low income people being pushed out of their homes with evictions and losing of their jobs and other displacements and we see many people living in their vehicles. i hope we can more carefully work at tracking the human elements and with regards
to hygiene and that process. if we are going to be cleaning up blight and problems in the neighbors in my district as well, i sure hope we are taking care of that human elements. as i know mr. duh! sea -- duffy is working on and with a small amount of money that we are looking at the human impact as well. i look forward to working with mr. duffy and captain long citywide as well. >> there is a motion. >> i would like to make a motion to file the hearing. >> okay. seconded by supervisor campos. this motion carries forward. this item is filed. thank you everyone for your service and your commitment and
advocacy. >> madam clerk, please call item 3. hearing implementation of audit recommendation status. >> thank you so much. okay. so let's sorry. sir. we have a meeting to continue. this is a quarterly update for our city service auditor. i believe we have a representative from the department. great. okay. we are ready to begin. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i'm the director of city audits for the controller city's service auditor and the associate auditor. today we'll speak about my offices audit follow up activity in the last fiscal year. why and how we do follow up process and how
implementation status of recommendations at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. and in the field follow up process we go out and we gather evidence and we a test to determine where the recommendations were implemented. however do -- due to the number of resources, we have audits that require follow up. part of them that are affecting a large impact and safety or fraud generally due to week controls. follow ups are critical because most audits don't receive a follow up audits. for regular follow ups we have a status
notification. open contested or closed base on the department whether self reported actions fulfill the recommendations. >> sfgtv can we get the overhead, the powerpoint presentation. there we go. >> i apologize. so as you note on the slides open recommendations has not been implemented, continue -- contested. they are not going to for various reasons due to lack of rer sources or they don't agree with the recommendation and the club has done what was needed for the recommendation. and no longer requirement. the follow up status is based on the department's responsiveness.
recommendations can be active, open or closed active, no departmental response, as a result of that we'll continue to follow up up with the recommendations are closed even after a 24-month period. there is remaining or contested item within that particular audit and we are still concerned about it. generally in those terms we bring it to you, the board. close all recommendations filled and recommendations have passed the 2-year mark and we continue to follow up on the recommends to ensure the departments are complying. again as a reminder with our regular follow ups, we rely solely on the progress reported by the organization. we audit it. however in our field follow up audits we look
at how they are followed up. and then we give information in greater detail. we followed up on over 500 over recommendation from 56 reports. we sent 71 request to departments for 64 follow ups because some reports and memos make recommendations to multiple departments which are tracked separately that is the discretion. this slide shows the department followed up to our request in the last year. most of our responses were on time. general, police
services and mta and there were a couple departments that weren't as prompt. what we do with the department with the puc and department of public health, they are large departments demand recent months puc has been dealing with the disasters with the rim fire and the payroll has to be negotiated along with our union. >> they are just informing that there is another committee that is going to be to havecovered at 2:00. we are going to have to kick it into high gear. >> let's flip to a couple sides. they have asked the departments to come speak about several recommendations that
have not been implemented and what they are doing. so forth and on to their department. how about if we go there? >> that sounds good. >> okay. okay. so we are going to look at highlights from our 2004 report and that report hat 28 recommendations. the audit found that leasing 6 parking garages to non-profit corporations was unnecessarily costly and had several recommendations to improve the department's management of those garage leases. two recommendations remain open in that subject matter. the audit found that the department needed to do more to ensure that it would comply with the requirements from the federal
highway administration. five recommendations remain open on this particular matter and specifically the division that managed traffic signals and traffic marking had work that need to be addressed. the department did no preventative maintenance and signs and marking. the department did not have the appropriate tools in the system and plans in place to meet the requirements. the report also pointed out that if sf mta does not successfully implement the recommendations it risk losing federal funding and increasing the city's tort liability. sf is here to discuss this matter. >> von, do you think you can discuss it in a quick fashion. >> i will do it real quick. first i want to thank them for
conducting the audit. we welcome the opportunity for improvement and we take the recommendations seriously. i think there is out of the 38 original recommendations there is 9 open and i think 6 of them was just mentioned by the csa on follow up. four of them relate specifically to the newly adopted federal guidelines for reflectivity on the signs because you want to be able to see them in the dark. it's unfunded mandate that every municipality in the country is grappling with and they do recognize that and they have a clause in the recommendation that you implement as over time, but even though there is a stated
compliance date, it's prioritized by local agencies based on need and funding availability. i don't believe we'll be losing any funding over this, but we are very cognizant of the deadlines and taking it very seriously. one of the things we are doing is taking our data base of all the signs and converting it into a system where it becomes inventory control. we'll know exactly where all the 200,000 signs of all the cities and the age of them when they were installed. one of their methods that their federal government allows us to use is to either go out to the field with a device and measure the reflectivity of each sign which is labor intensive and not practical and you look at data as a proxy to see what we are using the age to